Gillian and Ronan Treacy's young son was killed by a drunk driver last year, their impact statement was read out in court today. I read it on RTE website earlier and for some reason it has stuck in my head all day.
Anyone that has ever considered getting into a car and driving with drink taken would do well to have a read....
Full story here http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1027/737737-ciaran-treacy/ (http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1027/737737-ciaran-treacy/)
QuoteThe family's victim impact statement read:
On Thursday 17 April 2014, both Sean and Ciaran spent the day with their grandparents, a perfect day that ended in tragedy.
On our way home, we were involved in a head-on collision with Finbar O'Rourke. The collision happened within seconds, leaving me crushed and trapped in our car, unable to get my boys out of the car having to wait, which felt like an eternity, for some passers-by to help.
While we waited for help to arrive, the panic, shock and pain was unbearable.
I fought for my life thinking the car was going to burst up in flames at any moment, while trying to comfort both Sean and Ciaran.
They were crying and screaming with shock and pain. All of a sudden Ciaran became silent. It was a silence I had never experienced before and as a mother I knew was not right.
I then feared the worst for Ciaran. I knew he had been badly injured, or the unthinkable - dead.
Sean remained crying while I tried to calm him and get him to get himself and his brother out of the car, fearing that the car could go on fire at any moment.
Thankfully as people came on the scene we were finally getting help and they phoned for the emergency services. Sean was first to be taken from the car, then Ciaran.
Shortly after this somebody phoned my husband and held the phone to my ear where I told him what happened and to come quick.
The last sighting I had of Ciaran was him being carried to the side of the road, with the evening sun beaming through his blonde hair.
The next time I saw my little boy, was on a stretcher - dead.
Soon afterwards my husband, Ronan, also arrived at the scene with our other child Caoimhe.
We both had to look on at our two sons on the side of the road, Sean being comforted while Ciaran was being resuscitated.
The look of horror and disbelief on his face told me that our lives were falling apart.
After an hour of the firemen cutting me from the car, all this time I was watching the panic and fear etched on their faces while they tried to free me from the car and as they worked on me and both my boys.
Sean and Ciaran were taken to Portlaoise Hospital, while I was taken to Tullamore Hospital.
I constantly asked the medical staff, was there any update on Sean and Ciaran, but I was so critical they could not tell me about Ciaran's death.
I was brought to theatre for my first of ten surgeries in the early hours of Friday, 18 April.
Hours later I woke up but was being supported by a ventilator.
Ronan and his brother Fergus arrived shortly after I woke, unable to speak because of tubes down my throat, the only way I could communicate was to make the letter 'C' with my finger on the sheet.
It was then that Ronan confirmed what I already knew in my heart that Ciaran didn't make it.
My whole life was shattered and my heart was broken when my worst nightmare had been confirmed.
Early Saturday Ciaran was brought to me on a stretcher. I tried to hold him on my best side with total disbelief, none of this made any sense.
I spent that night with Ciaran, talking to him and making the most of our final hours together. I spoke to God about Ciaran's favourite toys, food, colour and all the things that made him unique.
My injuries were two fractured ankles, a compound fracture to my left leg, a fractured pelvis and hip, a fractured elbow and sternum, but the worst injury was the pain which came from my broken heart.
Ciaran was taken from me on Sunday morning to be waked in our home.
That was the last time I saw our little boy. I attended Ciaran's funeral by ambulance, on a trolley with the aid of two paramedics and an ICU nurse. It was a day that no parent should have to endure, seeing their child's coffin, their families devastated with grief and sadness.
The days after the funeral, I wanted answers as to what happened. I could remember the car coming towards us at speed, the colour of the car, the make of the car and part of the registration.
Over the next few days the devastating news filtered through that the other driver was drunk, what made this worse was that he was a so-called professional driver, a representative for a confectionery company, Cadbury's, one who should have known better.
When it all was put together, I had been driving home with Sean and Ciaran when a drunk driver at high speed collided with our car.
Five long weeks, ten surgeries later, I returned home. It was only then that we as a family could be together and grieve for Ciaran.
I missed all this time away from Sean and Caoimhe, while their little minds were trying to come to terms with what happened.
Five weeks is a long time to be separated from two very vulnerable children and a heart broken husband. Again this I will never forgive Finbar O'Rourke for.
Since then we have struggled every minute of every day trying to be parents to Sean and Caoimhe. To be able to support each other while we are paralysed with grief and in the depths of despair.
Several milestones have taken place since. Ciaran's 'month's mind' mass took place on Ronan's 40th birthday, instead of celebrating we were going through a repeat of Ciaran's funeral.
Before the collision, Halloween was a very exciting time in our house, but we had to get through it for our other children.
Christmas, which should be a time of happiness and joy, was filled with despair and heart wrenching moments without Ciaran.
Then came the New Year, Ciaran's Birthday - January 3rd. His 5th Birthday celebrated for him but without him, surrounded by our families, heartbroken watching Sean and Caoimhe blow out his candles.
Then Easter we relived every minute of the time coming up to the collision. On 17 April, It was Ciaran's anniversary, after this day we could no longer say ''This Time Last Year''.
We have gone through hell and back since Ciaran's death. Torn, between being parents, while we ache for our son.
Keeping a face for Sean and Caoimhe and as the day goes on we find ourselves smothering with grief and devastation.
Some of my darkest moments have been at night when the children slept, trying to come to terms with everything, from the trauma of the crash, the nightmares, the feeling of being on fire and the screams of my children and being unable to be a mother to them.
On nights that it was unbearable, I just wanted to die. Ronan would hold me while we both cried and ached for Ciaran. We have had to watch our parents, brothers and sister, nieces and nephews and extended family and friends of Ciaran go through this nightmare, the complete devastation of Ciaran's loss.
I have spent months torturing myself looking for reasons that would have made the outcome different. If I had gone home earlier or later, taken another road, but through counselling I now know that this was not my fault.
I was a mother taking her two children home to her husband and their father and our daughter to get ready for Easter. We lived our lives for our children. Everything we did was for them and our needs came last, but we were happy with that because they were our world.
Ronan all this time had to care for me while I was non weight-bearing in a wheelchair, while I had to learn how to walk again. He had to care for Sean and Caoimhe and tried to keep our business afloat.
Since the collision we have lost our business because of the financial strain of hiring extra staff to cover both myself and Ronan's jobs.
I am a trained beauty therapist and had my own salon for ten years. I took a career break from my business to be a stay-at-home mother while trying to work evenings in Ronan's shop.
Due to financial pressure we have had to put the premises where I operated the salon from up for sale. My plan was to return to my career when Caoimhe started school but now I cannot due to my disabilities from my injuries. While Ronan tried to run the business, we had to travel to Portlaoise to bank with AIB as the Portarlington branch had closed.
Physically every day is a struggle. I have days when I cannot function with pain. My left leg requires more surgery and if this surgery does not work I could face a lower leg amputation.
Even though losing my leg will never be as bad as losing Ciaran. Family life will never be the same without Ciaran. We speak his name and try so very hard to include him in everything we do.
We try to keep his memory alive with the children and they both speak of him as if he has just gone away and will come back.
Children do not understand that death is permanent and over time they will have to come to the realisation that their brother will not be coming back.
We as parents comfort them when they ask where Ciaran is. We tell them he lives in heaven but he still is also in their hearts.
We as parents, Sean, Caoimhe, our parents and extended family will never be able to come to terms with Ciaran's loss. We will always wonder how life would have been.
He never got the chance to start school, make his Communion, Confirmation, go to college, get married or have children.
These are the things that will break our hearts even more knowing he did not get to live his life, a life that was so brutally taken through the drunken actions of Finbar O'Rourke. Again this I will never forgive Finbar O'Rourke for.
What keeps us alive are Sean and Caoimhe. They need us and it is our goal to be good parents to them and they deserve nothing less. They have suffered enough and will suffer more missing Ciaran in their lives.
We carry on knowing we have an angel in heaven watching over us. The only glue that keeps our hearts together is Sean and Caoimhe. We all will miss Ciaran every day of the remainder of our lives.
We thank God for four precious years with him but grieve for the life he was denied by the actions of Finbar O'Rourke, a drunk driver who shattered and devastated our family.
Gillian and Ronan Treacy.
thats horrendous. worst nightmare stuff. god help them.
absolutely horrible to even read but if it means someone might think twice about taking a drink and driving...
that's a hard read.
I hope they can find strength to live some sort of life.
A hard read. I hope they can eventually move on.
Tears in my eyes reading that. :'(
Yet this shit happens every f**king day of the week. Lowlife scumbags.
cant even imagine what they must be going through, hope they can find the strength from somewhere.
Heartbreaking reading that, I had tears in my eyes.
Wait to see what sentence he gets, will he even do 5 years?
Quote from: J70 on October 27, 2015, 05:56:29 PM
Tears in my eyes reading that. :'(
Yet this shit happens every f**king day of the week. Lowlife scumbags.
Fortunately, this has now become less acceptable in Ireland, I suspect in many parts of the US drink driving remains more common, and you the have the likes of the crash into the football homecoming.
Quote from: armaghniac on October 27, 2015, 07:39:07 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 27, 2015, 05:56:29 PM
Tears in my eyes reading that. :'(
Yet this shit happens every f**king day of the week. Lowlife scumbags.
Fortunately, this has now become less acceptable in Ireland, I suspect in many parts of the US drink driving remains more common, and you the have the likes of the crash into the football homecoming.
It is still very normal in areas of County Down - I have a friend in Saintfield, Newcastle direction and he says the cops are never on the roads and his Da and his mates drink and drive home from the golf club all the time
I'd say it is common in most places. It might be less acceptable but that doesn't mean it still doesn't happen. I know plenty of people who do it and would think nothing of it. Even the next morning a lot of people would still be over the limit without realising.
That was brutal, that poor family is going through hell right now, and for no good reason.
A lad I played golf with once a year at an outing is doing 20 years for killing his fiance and seriously injuring a motorist because he was driving on the wrong side of the road, his woman and him took turns driving hammered for man years, it is a very rural area and there were few cops in the county, in northern Wisconsin.
Here is the thing, not only did he lose his future wife, but he also killed the mother of his two year old daughter, he never ha so much as a parking ticket before that but he should have been caught sometime in the prior ten years or so. I really like the guy and even took the keys off him one night because he was hammered to the point he was stumbling, several people did that over the years but look at the cost, one injured innocent, one dead fiance and the unkindest cut of all, a daughter who gets to grow up knowing daddy killed mummy due to stupidity, both these incidents are heartbreaking and my prayers go out to both families.
That's one of the saddest things I've read...tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. I wish them well for the future and hop the guilty party gets his comeuppance
Very sad. No excuse for drinking and driving. Heard on the radio this evening that 10,000 drivers were caught over the limit in the last 2 or 3 years. That's just the ones caught. An absolute disgrace.
That is absolutely terrible :'(
As a new father, this stuff scares the hell out of me. We will forget about this but the family never will. A life sentence. God help them
and drink driving is found among those that might be setting an example
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/drink-driving-bishop-given-seven-years-for-killing-cyclist-702694.html
Very sad story and the reaction is understandable.
I take a shandy about 3 times a year, so I don't condone the actions of any drink driver. However I would like to know more about the actions of Finbar O'Rourke and his story. Was he a sc**bag, or someone that was encouraged to drink that day? Did he drink and drive on a regular basis? Was he doing someone else a favour? Was he speeding? I assume that his family are part victims in this too.
Lord God, my heart goes out to that family, and indeed every family who has lost young children due to those circumstances. Found it very hard reading. Had tears in my eyes too. Such a young life cut short. Words fail me. Why do people do it?
Extremely hard to read. Cant even imagine what they are going through. On this topic, is jumping in the car after drinking something many of here would do / have done?
God love them that was heart breaking reading. I have 3 wee ones and I couldn't comprehend losing one of them.
Drink driving leaves so many torn families.
Quote from: ThroughTheLaces on October 27, 2015, 10:35:19 PM
Extremely hard to read. Cant even imagine what they are going through. On this topic, is jumping in the car after drinking something many of here would do / have done?
I live half a mile from the club and wouldn't even dream about taking the yoke home after 2 pints. Thing that scares me is that if I collect it the next day about 1pm after 7 or 8 pints the night before I could still be done. However no sympathy for cnuts who get tanked up on pints and half uns and then drive home and wreck peoples' live. Jail the fcukers.
Quote from: 5 Sams on October 27, 2015, 11:36:54 PM
Quote from: ThroughTheLaces on October 27, 2015, 10:35:19 PM
Extremely hard to read. Cant even imagine what they are going through. On this topic, is jumping in the car after drinking something many of here would do / have done?
I live half a mile from the club and wouldn't even dream about taking the yoke home after 2 pints. Thing that scares me is that if I collect it the next day about 1pm after 7 or 8 pints the night before I could still be done. However no sympathy for cnuts who get tanked up on pints and half uns and then drive home and wreck peoples' live. Jail the fcukers.
What scares me is that is what scares you 5 Sams, I mean really, they would do you 12 hours later? wtf is the limit over there? Here it is .08.
I wouldn't take even one if driving. What's the point and one leads some boys into the temptation of another and then another.
Quote from: stew on October 27, 2015, 11:56:06 PM
Quote from: 5 Sams on October 27, 2015, 11:36:54 PM
Quote from: ThroughTheLaces on October 27, 2015, 10:35:19 PM
Extremely hard to read. Cant even imagine what they are going through. On this topic, is jumping in the car after drinking something many of here would do / have done?
I live half a mile from the club and wouldn't even dream about taking the yoke home after 2 pints. Thing that scares me is that if I collect it the next day about 1pm after 7 or 8 pints the night before I could still be done. However no sympathy for cnuts who get tanked up on pints and half uns and then drive home and wreck peoples' live. Jail the fcukers.
What scares me is that is what scares you 5 Sams, I mean really, they would do you 12 hours later? wtf is the limit over there? Here it is .08.
It is 0.05 in the 26 counties. In fairness, by 1pm you would be unlikely to be over the limit. This issue arises more with people out until 2-3am who get up at 7am and drive to work, hence the early morning checkpoints in December.
From 2-3pm or to 2-3pm?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 28, 2015, 12:37:54 AM
From 2-3pm or to 2-3pm?
from 2-3pm to 2-3am!
I always preferred the 24 hour clock! Those who drink to 02:30 and arise at 06:30.
Quote from: armaghniac on October 28, 2015, 12:48:52 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 28, 2015, 12:37:54 AM
From 2-3pm or to 2-3pm?
from 2-3pm to 2-3am!
I always preferred the 24 hour clock! Those who drink to 02:30 and arise at 06:30.
Never great preparation for driving a vehicle.
Heartbreaking story, very brave of the mother.
Quote from: Orior on October 27, 2015, 10:01:22 PM
Very sad story and the reaction is understandable.
I take a shandy about 3 times a year, so I don't condone the actions of any drink driver. However I would like to know more about the actions of Finbar O'Rourke and his story. Was he a sc**bag, or someone that was encouraged to drink that day? Did he drink and drive on a regular basis? Was he doing someone else a favour? Was he speeding? I assume that his family are part victims in this too.
I think the '8-10 pints' on board took any possible mitigation out of it.
Quote from: ThroughTheLaces on October 27, 2015, 10:35:19 PM
Extremely hard to read. Cant even imagine what they are going through. On this topic, is jumping in the car after drinking something many of here would do / have done?
I don't drive so the question never arises for me. I do have a drink with a group of lads on a Tuesday night, 2 of which drive home. Most weeks they have 2 pints, with 2.5 the most i've ever seen them take. From what i can tell its the thought of getting caught over the limit that stops them taking more (even though at 2 they're probably are over already) rather than that they might be a risk to themselves and others.
Thinking about it i do feel a bit uncomfortable knowing that in a small way i'm choosing to endorse/condone their choice to drink and drive. But what can you do?
Quote from: Clov on October 28, 2015, 09:17:45 AM
Quote from: ThroughTheLaces on October 27, 2015, 10:35:19 PM
Extremely hard to read. Cant even imagine what they are going through. On this topic, is jumping in the car after drinking something many of here would do / have done?
I don't drive so the question never arises for me. I do have a drink with a group of lads on a Tuesday night, 2 of which drive home. Most weeks they have 2 pints, with 2.5 the most i've ever seen them take. From what i can tell its the thought of getting caught over the limit that stops them taking more (even though at 2 they're probably are over already) rather than that they might be a risk to themselves and others.
Thinking about it i do feel a bit uncomfortable knowing that in a small way i'm choosing to endorse/condone their choice to drink and drive. But what can you do?
Honestly, you should start by separating drink driving from drunk driving. Having 2 pints over 3-4 hours and driving home is not the same thing, not even remotely similar, to drinking a swamp of pints then revving it home. Not even remotely close.
A sober idiot is a much bigger danger in a car than a sensible driver who's teetering on the legal limit. Obviously a drunk idiot is the worst of both worlds.
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 10:09:20 AM
Quote from: Clov on October 28, 2015, 09:17:45 AM
Quote from: ThroughTheLaces on October 27, 2015, 10:35:19 PM
Extremely hard to read. Cant even imagine what they are going through. On this topic, is jumping in the car after drinking something many of here would do / have done?
I don't drive so the question never arises for me. I do have a drink with a group of lads on a Tuesday night, 2 of which drive home. Most weeks they have 2 pints, with 2.5 the most i've ever seen them take. From what i can tell its the thought of getting caught over the limit that stops them taking more (even though at 2 they're probably are over already) rather than that they might be a risk to themselves and others.
Thinking about it i do feel a bit uncomfortable knowing that in a small way i'm choosing to endorse/condone their choice to drink and drive. But what can you do?
Honestly, you should start by separating drink driving from drunk driving. Having 2 pints over 3-4 hours and driving home is not the same thing, not even remotely similar, to drinking a swamp of pints then revving it home. Not even remotely close.
A sober idiot is a much bigger danger in a car than a sensible driver who's teetering on the legal limit. Obviously a drunk idiot is the worst of both worlds.
Really? Drink driving is drink driving. If you're over the limit you're over the limit, no matter what manner you've been drinking. So whether you have had two pints over a few hours or have been on a bender you'll still have the same basic outcome. Worth bearing in mind if you drink one pint in the space of an hour you're already at the legal drink drive limit... Btw who on earth nurses 2 pints over four hours?
I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.
I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 11:32:53 AM
I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.
I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours
There's a word for those people - c***ts.
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 10:09:20 AM
Quote from: Clov on October 28, 2015, 09:17:45 AM
Quote from: ThroughTheLaces on October 27, 2015, 10:35:19 PM
Extremely hard to read. Cant even imagine what they are going through. On this topic, is jumping in the car after drinking something many of here would do / have done?
I don't drive so the question never arises for me. I do have a drink with a group of lads on a Tuesday night, 2 of which drive home. Most weeks they have 2 pints, with 2.5 the most i've ever seen them take. From what i can tell its the thought of getting caught over the limit that stops them taking more (even though at 2 they're probably are over already) rather than that they might be a risk to themselves and others.
Thinking about it i do feel a bit uncomfortable knowing that in a small way i'm choosing to endorse/condone their choice to drink and drive. But what can you do?
Honestly, you should start by separating drink driving from drunk driving. Having 2 pints over 3-4 hours and driving home is not the same thing, not even remotely similar, to drinking a swamp of pints then revving it home. Not even remotely close.
A sober idiot is a much bigger danger in a car than a sensible driver who's teetering on the legal limit. Obviously a drunk idiot is the worst of both worlds.
I don't think there is a qualitative difference between the two - just a quantitative difference. Two pints increases your risk of having an accident (as does driving like an idiot when sober). It impairs your judgment and slows your reflexes.
Quote from: gallsman on October 28, 2015, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 11:32:53 AM
I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.
I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours
There's a word for those people - c***ts.
Do you drive? Do you drink?
If the answer to both of these is yes the chances are very high that you have drove when over the limit, I can't understand why people are so holier than thou about this.
Which is not to take away from the immense pain that that family, and many others, have gone through as a result of drink driving accidents.
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 12:18:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 28, 2015, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 11:32:53 AM
I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.
I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours
There's a word for those people - c***ts.
Do you drive? Do you drink?
If the answer to both of these is yes the chances are very high that you have drove when over the limit, I can't understand why people are so holier than thou about this.
Which is not to take away from the immense pain that that family, and many others, have gone through as a result of drink driving accidents.
Its easily done, especially the morning after. i know theres been times when I've had maybe 10 pints the night before and have had to get to work for 9 the following morning and prob still over the limit but chance it anyway. Equally i used to take a pint or 2 after a match in the club and drive home, never any more than 2 pints usually with a couple of pints of water or cordial in-between but was prob still over the limit.
Definitely an issue in rural Ireland. Would it be more or less prevalent these days in the north? On one hand I think attitudes have hardened towards it but on the other hand you don't have checkpoints.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 28, 2015, 01:07:02 PM
Definitely an issue in rural Ireland. Would it be more or less prevalent these days in the north? On one hand I think attitudes have hardened towards it but on the other hand you don't have checkpoints.
I would have thought so, certain areas are always crawling with police (Dungiven, cookstown, Derry) and it's still always being reported in the local press... Without wanting to stereotype a lot of the culprits are Eastern European.
I also don't think police go for checkpoints anymore what with social media and Facebook etc people always warn each other of them.
Quote from: general_lee on October 28, 2015, 01:23:06 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 28, 2015, 01:07:02 PM
Definitely an issue in rural Ireland. Would it be more or less prevalent these days in the north? On one hand I think attitudes have hardened towards it but on the other hand you don't have checkpoints.
I would have thought so, certain areas are always crawling with police (Dungiven, cookstown, Derry) and it's still always being reported in the local press... Without wanting to stereotype a lot of the culprits are Eastern European.
I also don't think police go for checkpoints anymore what with social media and Facebook etc people always warn each other of them.
Yeah I think attitudes have changed but still think it is way more common in rural settings than people would even like to admit too.
I definitely think there are a younger generation of people now that are much less likely to drink drive than would have been the case in the past.
In my experience , its the guys that have done it for years that continue to do it.
Personally I would see younger, male drivers as a bigger threat on the roads than any drink driver
Quote from: general_lee on October 28, 2015, 01:35:51 PM
Personally I would see younger, male drivers as a bigger threat on the roads than any drink driver
Possibly, but that's a different thing.
I am just saying that younger lads are less likely to drink drive than the older generation, at least that's my experience.
I'd be curious as to the percentage of accidents caused by drivers at or marginally above the limit versus those caused by drivers speeding, texting or generally not paying attention.
From afar, this hyper enforcement of OUI Law in the 26 countijes looks more like a money grab than anything else.
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 12:18:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 28, 2015, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 11:32:53 AM
I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.
I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours
There's a word for those people - c***ts.
Do you drive? Do you drink?
If the answer to both of these is yes the chances are very high that you have drove when over the limit, I can't understand why people are so holier than thou about this.
Which is not to take away from the immense pain that that family, and many others, have gone through as a result of drink driving accidents.
I have driven the next morning after nights out for sure. I have never "had a lock of pints and driven home".
Quote from: whitey on October 28, 2015, 01:41:34 PM
I'd be curious as to the percentage of accidents caused by drivers at or marginally above the limit versus those caused by drivers speeding, texting or generally not paying attention.
I thought something similar when they lowered the alcohol limits (from 0.08 to 0.05 I think?) there a few years back. How many accidents were where the driver had a blood alcohol of 0.05-0.08 and so were being prevented by that change?
It would also be ineresting to consider the number of accidents caused by fairly marginal speeding (e.g. 0-10kph over the limit) - how significant is that? Lets face it, it's something we all do but we probably wouldn't consider it in the same vein as drink driving.
Quote from: gallsman on October 28, 2015, 01:50:40 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 12:18:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 28, 2015, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 11:32:53 AM
I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.
I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours
There's a word for those people - c***ts.
Do you drive? Do you drink?
If the answer to both of these is yes the chances are very high that you have drove when over the limit, I can't understand why people are so holier than thou about this.
Which is not to take away from the immense pain that that family, and many others, have gone through as a result of drink driving accidents.
I have driven the next morning after nights out for sure. I have never "had a lock of pints and driven home".
Fair to say you live in an urban environment Gallsman?
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 28, 2015, 02:01:41 PM
Quote from: whitey on October 28, 2015, 01:41:34 PM
I'd be curious as to the percentage of accidents caused by drivers at or marginally above the limit versus those caused by drivers speeding, texting or generally not paying attention.
I thought something similar when they lowered the alcohol limits (from 0.08 to 0.05 I think?) there a few years back. How many accidents were where the driver had a blood alcohol of 0.05-0.08 and so were being prevented by that change?
It would also be ineresting to consider the number of accidents caused by fairly marginal speeding (e.g. 0-10kph over the limit) - how significant is that? Lets face it, it's something we all do but we probably wouldn't consider it in the same vein as drink driving.
It would be interesting to look at the stats....what percentage of accidents are caused by drink drivers as opposed to people speeding and generally not paying attention
Quote from: NAG1 on October 28, 2015, 02:11:45 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 28, 2015, 01:50:40 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 12:18:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 28, 2015, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 11:32:53 AM
I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.
I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours
There's a word for those people - c***ts.
Do you drive? Do you drink?
If the answer to both of these is yes the chances are very high that you have drove when over the limit, I can't understand why people are so holier than thou about this.
Which is not to take away from the immense pain that that family, and many others, have gone through as a result of drink driving accidents.
I have driven the next morning after nights out for sure. I have never "had a lock of pints and driven home".
Fair to say you live in an urban environment Gallsman?
I don't think your location is any excuse
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on October 28, 2015, 02:23:27 PM
Quote from: NAG1 on October 28, 2015, 02:11:45 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 28, 2015, 01:50:40 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 12:18:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 28, 2015, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 11:32:53 AM
I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.
I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours
There's a word for those people - c***ts.
Do you drive? Do you drink?
If the answer to both of these is yes the chances are very high that you have drove when over the limit, I can't understand why people are so holier than thou about this.
Which is not to take away from the immense pain that that family, and many others, have gone through as a result of drink driving accidents.
I have driven the next morning after nights out for sure. I have never "had a lock of pints and driven home".
Fair to say you live in an urban environment Gallsman?
I don't think your location is any excuse
Didnt say it was an excuse Blewup
Difference is that when you are in Belfast it is perfectly easy to step out of any pub hail a taxi and on you go.
This is not available in rural areas therefore it is a more rural problem. So while I am not excusing it, it is easy to point the finger from an area of relative comfort. Not picking an urban rural fight either I am merely pointing out the difference.
What if this guy only had two pints in him and had the same accident. The end result is still the same and no less tragic. If you are over the limit you are over the limit. Granted the more you have to drink the greater risk you become to yourself and everyone around you but accidents can still happen even after 1 or 2 pints. Should you end up in court you can be sure the judge won't say "Ah sure your grand, you only had 2 pints and you were a sensible fella to call it a day at that so you could drive yourself home".
It is of course a very emotive subject. It's not possible to read something like this opening post, without withering inside.
But those people (such as a few on this thread) who feel the need to wash drink driving as a black and white issue do not help at all.
As with all crimes and misdemeanours, there's 100 shades of grey before you reach the 50 shades of black. While a breathalyser might indicate that someone who is 0.01 over the limit has broken the same law as someone who 6 times the limit, there is not a judge in the world who would treat the cases the same.
But hand on heart, I'd prefer to take my chances on the road with a 5-pint man driving a car within the speed limits, over a pioneer who wilfully drives at 40mph in built-up areas. They're both guilty, but one of them is less likely to kill someone.
A car is one of the most dangerous weapons ever created by man, especially in the hands of a careless person. There is no doubt that alcohol can be the conduit that evolves a normal person into a careless person, and as such we absolutely need laws that deter that carelessness from taking foot. But without meaning to sound flippant, human beings are a careless bunch, and the only way to stop human beings causing needless car accidents is to either ban cars or to wipe out humans. In scenarios such as the one that 93-DY-SAM describes above, I would put the 2 pints of alcohol a distant third (behind cars, and humans) in the reasons why someone died.
Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on October 28, 2015, 02:40:22 PM
What if this guy only had two pints in him and had the same accident. The end result is still the same and no less tragic. If you are over the limit you are over the limit. Granted the more you have to drink the greater risk you become to yourself and everyone around you but accidents can still happen even after 1 or 2 pints. Should you end up in court you can be sure the judge won't say "Ah sure your grand, you only had 2 pints and you were a sensible fella to call it a day at that so you could drive yourself home".
You'd wonder is the fella who's has 2-3 pints regularly and thinks he's grand more of a danger than the guy who's had 7-8 pints and knows he's cut but for whatever reason feels he has to drive but is being extra careful, driving pretty slowly, etc.?
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 02:54:36 PM
In scenarios such as the one that 93-DY-SAM describes above, I would put the 2 pints of alcohol a distant third (behind cars, and humans) in the reasons why someone died.
Granted, things are never completely black and white but if you are standing in front of a judge after being in an accident having killed a child (or anyone for that matter) after having a couple of drinks in what order do you think they will look at things? No one will ever be able to prove that if you didn't have those couple of drinks the accident would never have happened but the mere fact there is alcohol involved means that is what gets the blame. So I'm saying why even put yourself in that situation in the first place and leave yourself at risk.
I'm comfortable with the idea of portraying drink-driving as a black-and-white issue. I don't think it is inherently evil to drink-and-drive, and I appreciate the law has to be nuanced in sentencing. But it is something that is best treated as a taboo. Finbar O'Rourke said "I just didn't think, I just jumped into the car". If we lived in a place where getting behind the wheel with any amount of drink was frowned upon rather than treated as a form of the prisoner's dilemma, then some part of his lizard brain might have penetrated the fog of alcohol and stopped him before he ruined multiple lives - including his own.
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 02:54:36 PM
It is of course a very emotive subject. It's not possible to read something like this opening post, without withering inside.
But those people (such as a few on this thread) who feel the need to wash drink driving as a black and white issue do not help at all.
As with all crimes and misdemeanours, there's 100 shades of grey before you reach the 50 shades of black. While a breathalyser might indicate that someone who is 0.01 over the limit has broken the same law as someone who 6 times the limit, there is not a judge in the world who would treat the cases the same.
But hand on heart, I'd prefer to take my chances on the road with a 5-pint man driving a car within the speed limits, over a pioneer who wilfully drives at 40mph in built-up areas. They're both guilty, but one of them is less likely to kill someone.
A car is one of the most dangerous weapons ever created by man, especially in the hands of a careless person. There is no doubt that alcohol can be the conduit that evolves a normal person into a careless person, and as such we absolutely need laws that deter that carelessness from taking foot. But without meaning to sound flippant, human beings are a careless bunch, and the only way to stop human beings causing needless car accidents is to either ban cars or to wipe out humans. In scenarios such as the one that 93-DY-SAM describes above, I would put the 2 pints of alcohol a distant third (behind cars, and humans) in the reasons why someone died.
I would consider this attitude as a more dangerous weapon than a car, 2 pints, a gun of whatever. And its a massive part of Irish society where actions of many are excused for some bullshit reason that sounds good when read out in court or talked about down the pub or outside the school gates. Everything seems to be excused.
When does 2 pints become 3? 5? 7? How many people excuse themselves as been fit to drive cause they can handle their drink. Jimmy seems Paddy taking 2 pints and driving, so he'll do it to but Jimmy is a light weight and 2 pints has him giddy and taking chances.
Getting into a car with a 5 pint driver within the speed limits should never be an option or a choice.
It is completely a black and white issue. To argue otherwise is completely moronic. One drink alone can increase your risk of having an accident, so straight away your ability to drive will be brought into question if something does happen. I dare say doing 40 in a 30 zone is nowhere near as bad as driving after drinking near 3 litre of beer.
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 02:54:36 PM
It is of course a very emotive subject. It's not possible to read something like this opening post, without withering inside.
But those people (such as a few on this thread) who feel the need to wash drink driving as a black and white issue do not help at all.
As with all crimes and misdemeanours, there's 100 shades of grey before you reach the 50 shades of black. While a breathalyser might indicate that someone who is 0.01 over the limit has broken the same law as someone who 6 times the limit, there is not a judge in the world who would treat the cases the same.
But hand on heart, I'd prefer to take my chances on the road with a 5-pint man driving a car within the speed limits, over a pioneer who wilfully drives at 40mph in built-up areas. They're both guilty, but one of them is less likely to kill someone.
A car is one of the most dangerous weapons ever created by man, especially in the hands of a careless person. There is no doubt that alcohol can be the conduit that evolves a normal person into a careless person, and as such we absolutely need laws that deter that carelessness from taking foot. But without meaning to sound flippant, human beings are a careless bunch, and the only way to stop human beings causing needless car accidents is to either ban cars or to wipe out humans. In scenarios such as the one that 93-DY-SAM describes above, I would put the 2 pints of alcohol a distant third (behind cars, and humans) in the reasons why someone died.
I think this is where your argument misses the point - these two things are not uncorrelated. A 5-pint man behind the wheel is far more likely to drive 40mph in a built up area than if he were sober. Alcohol induces risk-taking.
Bingo, as long as you are willing to apply the same zero tolerance attitude to when anyone consciously chooses to break a driving law, then I'll applaud you for your integrity.
My point being that if you personally will tip it to 35mph in a built-up area if you're running a little late, then who are you to judge the man who believes he is of sound man to navigate that stretch at 40mph, 50mph, etc? Touch any pedestrian at those speeds and it's the end for them.
Personally I'm in 100% agreement with a drink driving limit, and like an earlier poster, I welcome the fact that drunk driving is largely taboo.
The point I'll continue to make though is don't lump people who've had a drink, in with people who aren't fit to drive. They're different, completely different entities.
Quote from: Clov on October 28, 2015, 05:12:09 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 02:54:36 PM
It is of course a very emotive subject. It's not possible to read something like this opening post, without withering inside.
But those people (such as a few on this thread) who feel the need to wash drink driving as a black and white issue do not help at all.
As with all crimes and misdemeanours, there's 100 shades of grey before you reach the 50 shades of black. While a breathalyser might indicate that someone who is 0.01 over the limit has broken the same law as someone who 6 times the limit, there is not a judge in the world who would treat the cases the same.
But hand on heart, I'd prefer to take my chances on the road with a 5-pint man driving a car within the speed limits, over a pioneer who wilfully drives at 40mph in built-up areas. They're both guilty, but one of them is less likely to kill someone.
A car is one of the most dangerous weapons ever created by man, especially in the hands of a careless person. There is no doubt that alcohol can be the conduit that evolves a normal person into a careless person, and as such we absolutely need laws that deter that carelessness from taking foot. But without meaning to sound flippant, human beings are a careless bunch, and the only way to stop human beings causing needless car accidents is to either ban cars or to wipe out humans. In scenarios such as the one that 93-DY-SAM describes above, I would put the 2 pints of alcohol a distant third (behind cars, and humans) in the reasons why someone died.
I think this is where your argument misses the point - these two things are not uncorrelated. A 5-pint man behind the wheel is far more likely to drive 40mph in a built up area than if he were sober. Alcohol induces risk-taking.
Cike you will never be able to prove or disprove this statement. I would agree with you though that a person who is a risk taker by nature, is more likely to be a risky driver with a handful of pints in them. But not everyone is a risk taker.
Sorry Wobbler, but there is a ton of experimental evidence indicating that people under the influence of alcohol (even small amounts) take more risks.
Quote from: NAG1 on October 28, 2015, 02:11:45 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 28, 2015, 01:50:40 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 12:18:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 28, 2015, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 28, 2015, 11:32:53 AM
I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.
I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours
There's a word for those people - c***ts.
Do you drive? Do you drink?
If the answer to both of these is yes the chances are very high that you have drove when over the limit, I can't understand why people are so holier than thou about this.
Which is not to take away from the immense pain that that family, and many others, have gone through as a result of drink driving accidents.
I have driven the next morning after nights out for sure. I have never "had a lock of pints and driven home".
Fair to say you live in an urban environment Gallsman?
It is, but I reject the lonely country farmer having to go five miles to his local "excuse" if that's where you're headed.
Sorry, jumped the gun when I saw your post. I agree that it's more likely to be a rural problem, buy that doesn't mean I'm during here pontificating about things I can't relate to. Just don't do it, wherever you are.
A car, like a gun is a lethal weapon in the wrong hands. Anything which impairs a drivers ability increases risk. In an ideal scenario the limit would be zero but it is set as it is to give some wiggle room for those who may have residual alcohol in their system.
I would contend that there is a difference in a driver with 1 drink and 1 with 8 drinks in their system and the law should reflect that. A man doing 70 in a built up area is much more dangerous than 1 doing 85 on a motorway.
I had think I suggested in a similar thread a number of years ago a graded differentiation within the law. E.g.
20-49mgs (residual alcohol) a formal warning, then 2nd time points
50-79 (2 drinks) 3 month ban and points
80-150mg 1-5 year ban
Over 150mg, jail.
I would have mobile users in band 2 along with people on prescription drugs.
People driving when tired or whilst being distracted by fighting children I would put in category 1.
Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 28, 2015, 08:59:01 PM
Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.
+1
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 28, 2015, 08:59:01 PM
Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.
If it's 0mg, people can potentially be done from using mouthwash, or very small levels in food or medicines. 20mg seems to he the lowest you can realistically go. But apart from that, agree totally. Why you would risk it is beyond me. I'm surprised with the number of people talking about "shades of grey" on this. I wasn't naive enough to think that people didn't drink and drive, but I thought it was a lot more socially unacceptable than some of the discussion here would suggest.
I would say in rural parts it's done quite a lot maguire. Always wonder going past pubs in the back of beyond in the middle of the day sunday how there would be sommany cars with people drinking. Quite a lot would just drive.
Have been in the car once with a very drunk driver when a lot younger and stranded at night. Wouldn't do it again.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 28, 2015, 08:59:01 PM
Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.
This sums it up for me. I don't drink now so you might think I'm sitting on my high horse, but I used to and never once would I go driving, even if I only went to town for one, and as Tony (I think) already said, it's hard to just go for 'one' without having one bought for you, and another, and another etc.
Haven't seen as much of it in city. Remember walking home once in the country and hear a car behind me - the guy driving up the road was that drunk he'd mounted the pavement. Lucky he was going slow.
I know someone who rang the cops to report their car stolen as they were that blocked when they came out of the pub to drove home they had forgotten where they parked it ???
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 28, 2015, 08:59:01 PM
Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.
And again I'll repeat ad finitum (or at least til one of the 0% brigade acknowledges this) that if you want to go down this route, then we must apply a 0% tolerance with speeding too, especially in built-up areas.
For you know what, the 30mph speed limit wasn't just written down on the side of a feg packet one morning. It's a scientifically reached number that allows for the movement of traffic, while reducing stopping distances to almost nothing in good weather, and even failing that, most people will survive being hit at this speed. At 40mph your chances of survival plummet.
I really wish this message would get though to the pontificating masses. And I don't mean on this board, I mean in general. Drink driving is very wrong, but to repeat my earlier sentiment, I would much rather get hit by a drunk driver (let alone a drink driver) than someone who is speeding.
I live rurally and I just don't buy into this argument about people living miles away from the pub so they have to drive. It's too convenient an excuse. Taxis work in the country just as well as towns and cities. Price of a taxi won't be much more than a pint or two. I just can't get my head around people who think it's acceptable to have a couple of drinks and drive. As someone else say are they really that hard up for a drink they are willing to risk it.
Just out of curiosity if I have two drinks and get stopped by the cops and am found to be just over the limit and nothing more is that an automatic one year driving ban?
We could start a whole new thread about exploits and things we saw in the 80s and 90s with lads driving home bingoed. Nothing to be proud of but it happened.
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 28, 2015, 08:59:01 PM
Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.
And again I'll repeat ad finitum (or at least til one of the 0% brigade acknowledges this) that if you want to go down this route, then we must apply a 0% tolerance with speeding too, especially in built-up areas.
For you know what, the 30mph speed limit wasn't just written down on the side of a feg packet one morning. It's a scientifically reached number that allows for the movement of traffic, while reducing stopping distances to almost nothing in good weather, and even failing that, most people will survive being hit at this speed. At 40mph your chances of survival plummet.
I really wish this message would get though to the pontificating masses. And I don't mean on this board, I mean in general. Drink driving is very wrong, but to repeat my earlier sentiment, I would much rather get hit by a drunk driver (let alone a drink driver) than someone who is speeding.
That makes no sense. Either scenario could leave you dead.
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 28, 2015, 08:59:01 PM
Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.
And again I'll repeat ad finitum (or at least til one of the 0% brigade acknowledges this) that if you want to go down this route, then we must apply a 0% tolerance with speeding too, especially in built-up areas.
For you know what, the 30mph speed limit wasn't just written down on the side of a feg packet one morning. It's a scientifically reached number that allows for the movement of traffic, while reducing stopping distances to almost nothing in good weather, and even failing that, most people will survive being hit at this speed. At 40mph your chances of survival plummet.
I really wish this message would get though to the pontificating masses. And I don't mean on this board, I mean in general. Drink driving is very wrong, but to repeat my earlier sentiment, I would much rather get hit by a drunk driver (let alone a drink driver) than someone who is speeding.
What an idiotic statement to make.
I think thewobbler is pished.
No it's not idiotic, nor is it cause I'm pished.
There is some chance that a drunk driver will be doing the speed limit or less.
There's absolutely no chance that someone speeding will be doing less than the speed limit.
That folks is simple maths, and if you try to argue with it, then you are an imbecile.
I didn't reply earlier cause this thread is about the lose of that young life caused by a drink/drunk driver.
Speeding is another matter. I don't see why they should be discussed together.
No harm to you Wobbler but this is a completely false dichotomy. Nobody is arguing for zero tolerance on drink driving but at the same time turning a blind eye to speeding because speeding is exactly one of the means through which individuals under the influence of alcohol are likely to cause an accident. People even with moderate levels of drink on board have impaired decision making and take more risks.
There are literally hundreds of scientific papers documenting the link between drinking and risk taking, across a whole variety of scenarios - including driving. Moreover, the neuropsychological mechanisms for this are very well known (essentially reduced activity in the frontal lobes of the brain). That your intuitions about this are so out of synch with the reality show what a dangerous combination moderate amounts of drinking with driving is. People who think they can drive as safely after a couple of pints are simply wrong.
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 10:52:16 PM
No it's not idiotic, nor is it cause I'm pished.
There is some chance that a drunk driver will be doing the speed limit or less.
There's absolutely no chance that someone speeding will be doing less than the speed limit.
That folks is simple maths, and if you try to argue with it, then you are an imbecile.
Read the first post in this thread. Then go to bed.
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 10:52:16 PM
No it's not idiotic, nor is it cause I'm pished.
There is some chance that a drunk driver will be doing the speed limit or less.
There's absolutely no chance that someone speeding will be doing less than the speed limit.
That folks is simple maths, and if you try to argue with it, then you are an imbecile.
The correct comparison is this: (1) the proportion of sober drivers speeding out of the total number of sober journeys vs. (2) the proportion of non-sober drivers speeding out of the total number of non-sober journeys.
Everything we know about drinking, decision making and risk taking should tell us that the figure for (2) is greater than (1).
Cike, regardless of scientific theory on alcohol and its effects, and the effects are undoubted, any attempts to quantify how much quicker it makes people drive is based on supposition.
My argument is based on fact. Every person who drives a car over the speed limit has simultaneously increased their chances of killing another human being. Unfortunately, as every person who has car has also driven it over the speed limit, it's one of those subjects that people don't want to make taboo; it makes them feel all wrong when it's pointed out to them that they're being reckless and would have no recourse if this led to killing someone. Well I'm asking the world to wake the duck up. Speeding is the single biggest problem on our roads. It's the one that always ends lives, and 100 times out of 100, it's preventable.
Tony, you've decided to pull an emotional card when it's not yours to play. Perhaps me and you could spend the rest of our lives swapping stories found on the internet, with you raising me a drink driving story and me re-raising a speeding story? Actually let's not. We both know it's neither an enjoyable argument nor one that can be won.
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 11:21:30 PM
Cike, regardless of scientific theory on alcohol and its effects, and the effects are undoubted, any attempts to quantify how much quicker it makes people drive is based on supposition.
My argument is based on fact. Every person who drives a car over the speed limit has simultaneously increased their chances of killing another human being. Unfortunately, as every person who has car has also driven it over the speed limit, it's one of those subjects that people don't want to make taboo; it makes them feel all wrong when it's pointed out to them that they're being reckless and would have no recourse if this led to killing someone. Well I'm asking the world to wake the duck up. Speeding is the single biggest problem on our roads. It's the one that always ends lives, and 100 times out of 100, it's preventable.
Tony, you've decided to pull an emotional card when it's not yours to play. Perhaps me and you could spend the rest of our lives swapping stories found on the internet, with you raising me a drink driving story and me re-raising a speeding story? Actually let's not. We both know it's neither an enjoyable argument nor one that can be won.
This is just wrong.
Do yourself a favour and have a look at the evidence
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hup.384/abstract
Quote from: Clov on October 28, 2015, 11:25:32 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 11:21:30 PM
Cike, regardless of scientific theory on alcohol and its effects, and the effects are undoubted, any attempts to quantify how much quicker it makes people drive is based on supposition.
My argument is based on fact. Every person who drives a car over the speed limit has simultaneously increased their chances of killing another human being. Unfortunately, as every person who has car has also driven it over the speed limit, it's one of those subjects that people don't want to make taboo; it makes them feel all wrong when it's pointed out to them that they're being reckless and would have no recourse if this led to killing someone. Well I'm asking the world to wake the duck up. Speeding is the single biggest problem on our roads. It's the one that always ends lives, and 100 times out of 100, it's preventable.
Tony, you've decided to pull an emotional card when it's not yours to play. Perhaps me and you could spend the rest of our lives swapping stories found on the internet, with you raising me a drink driving story and me re-raising a speeding story? Actually let's not. We both know it's neither an enjoyable argument nor one that can be won.
This is just wrong.
Do yourself a favour and have a look at the evidence
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hup.384/abstract
Do yourself a favour and simply accept that 100% of people who are speeding are dramatically increasing the chances of killing anyone they happen to hit. You can't get higher than 100%.
Quote from: Clov on October 28, 2015, 11:19:34 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 10:52:16 PM
No it's not idiotic, nor is it cause I'm pished.
There is some chance that a drunk driver will be doing the speed limit or less.
There's absolutely no chance that someone speeding will be doing less than the speed limit.
That folks is simple maths, and if you try to argue with it, then you are an imbecile.
The correct comparison is this: (1) the proportion of sober drivers speeding out of the total number of sober journeys vs. (2) the proportion of non-sober drivers speeding out of the total number of non-sober journeys.
Everything we know about drinking, decision making and risk taking should tell us that the figure for (2) is greater than (1).
Clov unless there's a roughly equal number of people driving every day with drink in their system as without, then this comparison is about as relevant as the price of coal in China.
Every person who drives with drink in them has increased their chances of harming another person. Every person who speeds has increased their chances of harming another person. There are infinitely more people in the second group. That's the key figure. But hi keep hammering the man who drinks two pints of it help your misplaced social conscience.
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 11:29:02 PM
Quote from: Clov on October 28, 2015, 11:25:32 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 11:21:30 PM
Cike, regardless of scientific theory on alcohol and its effects, and the effects are undoubted, any attempts to quantify how much quicker it makes people drive is based on supposition.
My argument is based on fact. Every person who drives a car over the speed limit has simultaneously increased their chances of killing another human being. Unfortunately, as every person who has car has also driven it over the speed limit, it's one of those subjects that people don't want to make taboo; it makes them feel all wrong when it's pointed out to them that they're being reckless and would have no recourse if this led to killing someone. Well I'm asking the world to wake the duck up. Speeding is the single biggest problem on our roads. It's the one that always ends lives, and 100 times out of 100, it's preventable.
Tony, you've decided to pull an emotional card when it's not yours to play. Perhaps me and you could spend the rest of our lives swapping stories found on the internet, with you raising me a drink driving story and me re-raising a speeding story? Actually let's not. We both know it's neither an enjoyable argument nor one that can be won.
This is just wrong.
Do yourself a favour and have a look at the evidence
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hup.384/abstract
Do yourself a favour and simply accept that 100% of people who are speeding are dramatically increasing the chances of killing anyone they happen to hit. You can't get higher than 100%.
And it is precisely because of that (blindingly obvious) fact that people who drink and then drive are such a risk.
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 11:33:20 PM
Quote from: Clov on October 28, 2015, 11:19:34 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 10:52:16 PM
No it's not idiotic, nor is it cause I'm pished.
There is some chance that a drunk driver will be doing the speed limit or less.
There's absolutely no chance that someone speeding will be doing less than the speed limit.
That folks is simple maths, and if you try to argue with it, then you are an imbecile.
The correct comparison is this: (1) the proportion of sober drivers speeding out of the total number of sober journeys vs. (2) the proportion of non-sober drivers speeding out of the total number of non-sober journeys.
Everything we know about drinking, decision making and risk taking should tell us that the figure for (2) is greater than (1).
Clov unless there's a roughly equal number of people driving every day with drink in their system as without, then this comparison is about as relevant as the price of coal in China.
Every person who drives with drink in them has increased their chances of harming another person. Every person who speeds has increased their chances of harming another person. There are infinitely more people in the second group. That's the key figure. But hi keep hammering the man who drinks two pints of it help your misplaced social conscience.
This is complete nonsense. I can only infer from this that you don't know what a proportion is.
If you compare the possible outcome of one speeding driver against the action of one drunk driver on the same piece of road then Wobbler is right.
Seriously Clov, are you honestly trying to tell me that there's a higher number of speeders with alcohol in their system than without? Or just proportionally higher (in which case we are probably looking at overall group sizes where drink drivers are a percentage of a percentage of sober drivers)?
Anyhow this is annoying me greatly. I've no qualms with people getting emotional about this issue. Drink driving is horrible and it would be in society's great interest to see it eradicated completely. But in my opinion, speeding is a much greater danger, and it's even more society's interests to make this the most taboo of actions
I'm done after this, but to reiterate my point, I'll ask a simple question.
It's late at night and you're walking home. Would you rather be hit from behind by:
A) someone who's had a couple (two) of pints and is aware of a potential for being a little over the limit, so is consciously driving in such a way to detract attention. Their reflexes are probably a bit jaded by the alcohol.
B) someone who's had at least 8 pints. That, and the fact that their reflexes are shot, is all you know.
C) someone who's stone cold sober but is speeding. Apart from the fact that their reflexes are working, all you know is they're speeding.
D) there is no d. Nobody is going to choose to be hit by a car ffs. Just happens the three types of driver above are those who've been discussed the most on this thread.
----
To help you along:
If you chose a) then unless you landed on your head, you're probably in hospital now, and that lad who hit you is tanking his lucky stars. Though you're the lucky one; you an still see your family.
If you chose b) then it's a coin toss (well, perhaps more like a 3-sided coin, and only 1 is on your favour) between the morgue and the hospital. There is after all a chance that our drunk driver does not think he's superman behind the wheel.
If you chose c) well it's bad news I'm afraid. If the driver saw you late at all, he was braking from 35mph plus. You could survive that. But you probably won't. At least he wasn't drunk I suppose.
Quote from: Orior on October 28, 2015, 11:59:21 PM
If you compare the possible outcome of one speeding driver against the action of one drunk driver on the same piece of road then Wobbler is right.
This is both trivially true and completely uninformative.
What we want to know as policy makers (deciding on drink driving laws) and more broadly as a society is whether the drunk driver is more likely to speed (and engage in other risky behaviour likely to cause accidents e.g. overtaking in dangerous spots etc.) than
he would if he were not drunk.
The evidence is yes - which is why we have the low tolerance laws we do and which is why people are abhorred by individuals choice to drink and then get behind the wheel.
Thats a very uncomfortable read and a horror story for any parent,the sad reality is, these horror stories are more common than you think. Its unbelievable how many young drivers are willing to risk DIC and even more alarming the amount of so called professional people who get behind the wheel after a few pints and think they are ok to drive home. Although over the past few years many drivers who took a taxi to the pub and home have been caught over the limit going to work the next morning by traffic branch especially in the festive season.
But thewobbler has a very valid point speed has a higher inpact in fatalities than alcohol.
Makes for very interesting reading....unfortunately I don't know how to just pull the graph
(Fatal car crashes, broken down by BAC)
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811385.PDF
Quote from: thewobbler on October 29, 2015, 12:09:12 AM
Seriously Clov, are you honestly trying to tell me that there's a higher number of speeders with alcohol in their system than without? Or just proportionally higher (in which case we are probably looking at overall group sizes where drink drivers are a percentage of a percentage of sober drivers)?
I'll try and make this simple.
Take a 100 random sober car journeys. Code for dangerous driving behaviour, e.g. speeding, over-taking in dangerous spots, too short braking distances etc.
Now take 100 random drunk car journeys and code for the exact same behaviours.
The prediction given everything we know about alcohol consumption & decision making, the increased propensity for risk taking etc., is that the number of dangerous driving behaviours will be greater in the 'drunk car journey' group.
We can refine this prediction even more. For example, if we had a moderate alcohol group (say after 2 pints) and an extreme group (say a minimum of 8 pints) we know that we would find a small but significant increase in dangerous driving in the moderate group (relative to the sober group) but a huge increase in the extreme group.
These are just the facts of the matter. No playing 'emotion cards' nor massaging 'a misplaced social conscience'.
Now that a sober individual may choose to drive at 70mph (and thus condemn anyone unfortunate enough to be hit by them to certain death) is entirely captured by this analysis (in the base rate of speeding among sober drivers). In much the same way as person who has drunk 8 pints may drive home under the speed limit and between the white lines is also captured in this analysis. Neither of these observations in isolation have any relevance for the question i took us all to be discussing on this thread, namely what level of drinking prior to driving should we as society tolerate.
Quote from: Orior on October 28, 2015, 11:59:21 PM
If you compare the possible outcome of one speeding driver against the action of one drunk driver on the same piece of road then Wobbler is right.
No he isn't. Define speeding?
Suupose the piece of road is 30km/h and you have guy doing 31km/h he therefore is technically speeding.
Then you have a guy who is blind drunk driving down the same road.. Are you saying you'd rather be crashed into by the guy speeding?
My example is extreme I admit, but there are so many variables at play if you are to be hit by a drunk driver or a guy speeding that to say you'd rather be crashed in to by one over the other is an idiotic thing to say.
Sure define drink driving then...There was an experiment done recently where they gave about 10 different people a shot of vodka (think thats what it was) and tested them to see if they were over the limit...1 or two failed. Then they all got another shot and were tested again, like before another few failed...long story short there was one girl who had 6 shots of vodka before she was legally over the limit. Moral of the story...2 pints for you after your match on a Sunday (being dehydrated) could potentially make you tipsy and two pints for me after a feed of Dublin Queens could possibly have no effect on me whatsoever...who knows until your breathalysed.
@ Wobbler
http://www.thedetail.tv/articles/two-years-of-death-and-serious-injury-on-northern-ireland-s-roads
The top three causes over the past 5 years for fatalities in the north are
1. Drink driving
2. Excessive speed
3. Inattention/attention diverted
Quote from: illdecide on October 29, 2015, 11:25:28 AM
Sure define drink driving then...There was an experiment done recently where they gave about 10 different people a shot of vodka (think thats what it was) and tested them to see if they were over the limit...1 or two failed. Then they all got another shot and were tested again, like before another few failed...long story short there was one girl who had 6 shots of vodka before she was legally over the limit. Moral of the story...2 pints for you after your match on a Sunday (being dehydrated) could potentially make you tipsy and two pints for me after a feed of Dublin Queens could possibly have no effect on me whatsoever...who knows until your breathalysed.
For me, drink driving is taking any drink and driving after it. If I have
a pint I do that in the knowledge that I won't be driving home.
A simple rule. Then I don't need to worry about over/under limits.
If I drink late at night (a rare occurrence) I don't drive the next day.
I take a drink because it relaxes me and I know a consequence of that is also being relaxed in terms of judgement and reflex.
For me the moral is "Don't drink at all when driving".
/Jim.
Why are more and more drivers completely unable to turn right properly? Most of the time they start the turn well before the proper turning point and cut across the right angle, marked clearly on the road, for traffic coming the other way, thereby driving briefly on the wrong side of the road. This stupid manoeuvre is usually followed by a glare at some other car, with which they nearly collide, but who as done nothing wrong.
Quote from: illdecide on October 29, 2015, 11:25:28 AM
Sure define drink driving then...There was an experiment done recently where they gave about 10 different people a shot of vodka (think thats what it was) and tested them to see if they were over the limit...1 or two failed. Then they all got another shot and were tested again, like before another few failed...long story short there was one girl who had 6 shots of vodka before she was legally over the limit. Moral of the story...2 pints for you after your match on a Sunday (being dehydrated) could potentially make you tipsy and two pints for me after a feed of Dublin Queens could possibly have no effect on me whatsoever...who knows until your breathalysed.
Exactly! sure that's my point!
There are too many variables with both that its is ridiculous to make such a statement that you'd rather be hit by one over the other.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 28, 2015, 08:59:01 PM
Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.
Well said.
If you need a pint that badly, pay for a taxi or have a drink at home.
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 11:21:30 PM
Cike, regardless of scientific theory on alcohol and its effects, and the effects are undoubted, any attempts to quantify how much quicker it makes people drive is based on supposition.
My argument is based on fact. Every person who drives a car over the speed limit has simultaneously increased their chances of killing another human being. Unfortunately, as every person who has car has also driven it over the speed limit, it's one of those subjects that people don't want to make taboo; it makes them feel all wrong when it's pointed out to them that they're being reckless and would have no recourse if this led to killing someone. Well I'm asking the world to wake the duck up. Speeding is the single biggest problem on our roads. It's the one that always ends lives, and 100 times out of 100, it's preventable.
Tony, you've decided to pull an emotional card when it's not yours to play. Perhaps me and you could spend the rest of our lives swapping stories found on the internet, with you raising me a drink driving story and me re-raising a speeding story? Actually let's not. We both know it's neither an enjoyable argument nor one that can be won.
I disagree.
The biggest problem on our roads are poor driving standards, both North & South of the border.
Its very easier for a Govt to make it look like they are doing something about road safety by throwing out the line that "Speed Kills" and by throwing a few speed cameras around the country.
It isn't as easy (read that as "it costs more") for the Govt to address the primary problem of driving standards. There are people on the road that simply cannot drive to an acceptable standard. The testing/ licensing system is just not thorough enough.
If both Govts were genuinely committed to reducing road deaths they would be pumping money into driver training and education from an early age.
Quote from: J70 on October 29, 2015, 07:10:35 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 28, 2015, 08:59:01 PM
Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.
Well said.
If you need a pint that badly, pay for a taxi or have a drink at home.
Did someone not point out earlier that a 0mg limit is not workable? Lets not get carried away here.
I would guess that using the mobile to either text or take/make a call is something that causes a lot of accidents. I know I have been guilty of using the phone whilst driving and have the points on my license to prove it!
http://www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats (http://www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats)
The above stats are for teens in the US so, on one hand you have inexperienced drivers, but on the other they mostly drive automatics.
You are 23 times more likely to crash if you text while driving. That is some statistic.
its fair to say that drink driving is drink driving. no matter what the variables, - how far over the limit you are, whether 2 pints affect you different than me, what speed you travel etc etc. whether you had 2 pints or 20. it shouldn't be done.
however the reality of rural life is different. someone mentioned the youth of today are more likely to adhere to the rules than older fellas. this is true. take for example a 78 year old man, who has been driving 6 miles every single Saturday night for 60 years to have a few pints and drives home. and he never in all that time as much as forgot to indicate, let alone speed or drive dangerously. it would be very hard to convince that man to get a taxi in and out of town.
im not defending it or condoning it, but that is very much reality in a lot of rural areas.
ill tell you what though, i think it might make a difference if a victim impact statement like that was sent to every household in the country, once every few months. i don't care who you are, you cant read a statement like that and not be affected. especially if you have young children. and no matter whats said on this thread, its good to talk about it.
Had a look at that report and the claim that the top cause of fatality is drink driving, which I have frequently heard before. However there seems to ba a lot of analysis and comment of the other factors such as road type, age, seatbelt use etc but zero in terms of drink driving. If there are so many fatalities caused by drink driving this does not seem to correlate with cases brought by the police for causing these.
There is usually an accompanying media profile of such cases, to the best of my recollection these types of prosecutions happen once or twice every year, in fact I can't recollect the last time I read about one. Maybe the media aren't picking up on all these cases or I am missing them, or the police aren't prosecuting them, or the drink drivers are the actual fatlities, but there certainly doesn't seem to be a correlation between the claimed number of drink related fatalities and the number of people being prosecuted for them.
Are there stats available for causation?
Quote from: muppet on October 30, 2015, 12:35:44 PM
http://www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats (http://www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats)
The above stats are for teens in the US so, on one hand you have inexperienced drivers, but on the other they mostly drive automatics.
You are 23 times more likely to crash if you text while driving. That is some statistic.
Any stats for smoking weed?
Heard a story from a friend once about a mate of his who was out a night and had a few beers. Got up the next day and was feeling a bit less than 100% so took a walk to the local garda station and asked to be breathalysed. The guards said no, that they can't do a test unless someone has been brought in after being suspected of drink driving. So instead of knowing for sure whether he was able to drive or at least have a guage of how long to wait, he was sent away to maybe take a risk.
Quote from: Orior on October 30, 2015, 01:08:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 30, 2015, 12:35:44 PM
http://www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats (http://www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats)
The above stats are for teens in the US so, on one hand you have inexperienced drivers, but on the other they mostly drive automatics.
You are 23 times more likely to crash if you text while driving. That is some statistic.
Any stats for smoking weed?
I need volunteers.
Quote from: Keyser soze on October 30, 2015, 12:56:24 PM
Had a look at that report and the claim that the top cause of fatality is drink driving, which I have frequently heard before. However there seems to ba a lot of analysis and comment of the other factors such as road type, age, seatbelt use etc but zero in terms of drink driving. If there are so many fatalities caused by drink driving this does not seem to correlate with cases brought by the police for causing these.
There is usually an accompanying media profile of such cases, to the best of my recollection these types of prosecutions happen once or twice every year, in fact I can't recollect the last time I read about one. Maybe the media aren't picking up on all these cases or I am missing them, or the police aren't prosecuting them, or the drink drivers are the actual fatlities, but there certainly doesn't seem to be a correlation between the claimed number of drink related fatalities and the number of people being prosecuted for them.
Are there stats available for causation?
General Lee had a link to an article giving the breakdown of "roles" of those killed on NI roads in the past 2 years.
Of 136 deaths 80 (59%) were drivers or their passengers (mainly drivers) whilst 24 (17.5%) were Motor-cyclists or their passengers. 32 (23.5%) were cyclists or pedestrians.
These figures are for all fatalities, not just those where drink was a factor. If we consider the high % of single vehicle crashes you could well be right.
Alternatively I could be putting & 2 together and getting 5.
Quote from: doodaa on October 30, 2015, 10:09:35 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on October 28, 2015, 11:21:30 PM
Cike, regardless of scientific theory on alcohol and its effects, and the effects are undoubted, any attempts to quantify how much quicker it makes people drive is based on supposition.
My argument is based on fact. Every person who drives a car over the speed limit has simultaneously increased their chances of killing another human being. Unfortunately, as every person who has car has also driven it over the speed limit, it's one of those subjects that people don't want to make taboo; it makes them feel all wrong when it's pointed out to them that they're being reckless and would have no recourse if this led to killing someone. Well I'm asking the world to wake the duck up. Speeding is the single biggest problem on our roads. It's the one that always ends lives, and 100 times out of 100, it's preventable.
Tony, you've decided to pull an emotional card when it's not yours to play. Perhaps me and you could spend the rest of our lives swapping stories found on the internet, with you raising me a drink driving story and me re-raising a speeding story? Actually let's not. We both know it's neither an enjoyable argument nor one that can be won.
I disagree.
The biggest problem on our roads are poor driving standards, both North & South of the border.
Its very easier for a Govt to make it look like they are doing something about road safety by throwing out the line that "Speed Kills" and by throwing a few speed cameras around the country.
It isn't as easy (read that as "it costs more") for the Govt to address the primary problem of driving standards. There are people on the road that simply cannot drive to an acceptable standard. The testing/ licensing system is just not thorough enough.
If both Govts were genuinely committed to reducing road deaths they would be pumping money into driver training and education from an early age.
Your absolutely right driving standards are atrocious north & south gone are the days of care courtesy & consideration, most drivers would rather cut you up than give way.Theres very little driver awareness or hazard perception out there now.
As a part time HGV driver I have noticed drivers using mobile phones,reading documents,eating & drinking while steering with their knees, while all these are contributory factors in accidents the speed at which the vehicle is travelling usually determines life or death ( 3 points of contact rule)
Over almost 30 years I have attended hundreds of RTAs or RTCs I have lost count of the casualties and fatalities, nothing shocks me on the roads anymore. Its like a game of Russian roulette, I think its almost 60 peple have died on the roads this year already.
Until governments tighten regulations, penalties, & driving accessments there will be many more stories like Gillian Treacys.
Manys a man has thought he's invincible after a session and drove home, especially in your 20s/30s.
Some times it takes a good friend to take the keys off you.
A 40-year-old man who was convicted of dangerous driving and causing the death of a young Laois boy has been sentenced to seven and a half years in prison.
Finbarr O'Rourke, of Laurel Drive, Portlaoise was also convicted of drinking and driving.
Passing sentence Judge Keenan Johnson described a victim impact statement provided to the court by four-year-old Ciaran Treacy's mother, Gillian Treacy, as the most powerful, upsetting and vivid he had ever read.
The judge paid tribute to Mrs Treacy and the message her words would send to anyone who drinks and drives.
Passing sentence on O'Rourke Judge Johnson paid tribute to the emergency services and the gardaà for the speed in which they arrived at the accident.
"I don't believe there is a single person who heard that statement who wasn't moved by it," he said.
"In the blink of an eye the Treacys' beautiful family life was shattered."
The judge said anyone who drinks and drives or has been convicted of drinking and driving should read the victim impact statement in this case and following that should ask themselves how would they cope if they found themselves in the position in which the accused found himself in today.
Judge Johnson said it is fair to say that over the past 25 years there has been a sea change in the attitude of the public towards drunken drivers, and for most people it is no longer socially acceptable to drink and drive.
An enormous amount of work has been done by the Road Safety Authority, including a campaign with shock advertising that is broadcast on prime-time television and has been a considerable success, he said.
Nevertheless, he added, the campaign must continue and be intensified to send a message to those people who still persist in drinking and driving or think that drinking and driving is not a serious offence that this is clearly not a sustainable or justifiable position.
Mrs Treacy told reporters she hopes that the sentence handed down today to a drunken driver will send a message to drivers all over the country.
She said the family was devastated by the loss of their child and he would never be forgotten.
She was speaking to reporters after a statement read by the family solicitor who said: "The Treacys are living the nightmare that every parent dreads.
"They are an ordinary hard working family whose lives have been changed forever.
"Words cannot express their anger their grief or their revulsion towards the drunk driver who robbed Gillian and Ronan of their beloved son and Caoimhe and Sean of the brother they deserved but now will never have.
"Those feelings will not outweigh the love and cherished memories of Ciaran which sustain them through their darkest hours."
The statement said: "The family want to acknowledge the Court's verdict and the sentence handed down which they hope will act as a warning and a deterrent to others."
I'm surprised that manslaughter isn't considered over death by dangerous driving in the most serious cases.
It's a tragic case but I'm not sure about the sentence. The judge was obviously moved by all that the family have been through, and it's unimaginable, but I don't think O' Rourke is any worse than lots of us who would have driven home in similar states of drunkenness(feeling invincible as O' Neill said). A mandatory two week prison sentence for anyone who drinks and drives would be a good idea imo, rather than treating it as a minor offence unless you're unfortunate enough to hit someone. If someone drinks ten pints and drives, the rest is just down to luck.You see people with multiple drink driving convictions get far lesser sentences and imo that's unfair. This man has to live with what he did as well and his suffering must be beyond comprehension too.
i dont mind the sentence.
i just wish they would hand out harsh sentences for all crime! not letting some rapist or child molester off with a 2 year sentence or suspended sentence.
be consistent.
I would love to know how O'Rourke feels and did he make any statement after being sentenced. Did he show remorse? Has he written to the family asking for forgiveness? Is he sorry for what he done? the Treacy family will always be haunted with this to the day of their grave but how will O'Rourke be and his family...
I know if i was stupid enough to do something like that i don't think i could live with myself, i'd be looking the judge to throw away the key to the cell
"O'Rourke made no response as Judge Keenan Johnson handed down the sentence at Portlaoise Circuit Court", according to the Indo (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/drink-driver-jailed-for-75-years-for-dangerous-driving-causing-death-of-ciaran-treacy-4-34165044.html).
Quote from: illdecide on November 03, 2015, 02:28:16 PM
I would love to know how O'Rourke feels and did he make any statement after being sentenced. Did he show remorse? Has he written to the family asking for forgiveness? Is he sorry for what he done? the Treacy family will always be haunted with this to the day of their grave but how will O'Rourke be and his family...
I know if i was stupid enough to do something like that i don't think i could live with myself, i'd be looking the judge to throw away the key to the cell
If you've driven while drunk at any point in your life, then you were stupid enough to do something like that and are no better than O' Rourke. I have and I'm sure lots of others on here have too.
Quote from: illdecide on November 03, 2015, 02:28:16 PM
I would love to know how O'Rourke feels and did he make any statement after being sentenced. Did he show remorse? Has he written to the family asking for forgiveness? Is he sorry for what he done? the Treacy family will always be haunted with this to the day of their grave but how will O'Rourke be and his family...
I know if i was stupid enough to do something like that i don't think i could live with myself, i'd be looking the judge to throw away the key to the cell
According to deiseach's Indo article, before sentencing he took the stand to say;
"I would give my life, I never went out to hurt anybody that day," he said. "I just didn't think, I just jumped into the car."
Seems pretty remorseful but I'm sure it's scant consolation.
Quote from: Asal Mor on November 03, 2015, 02:33:43 PM
If you've driven while drunk at any point in your life, then you were stupid enough to do something like that and are no better than O' Rourke. I have and I'm sure lots of others on here have too.
Agreed.
Quote from: GJL on October 30, 2015, 11:04:48 AM
I would guess that using the mobile to either text or take/make a call is something that causes a lot of accidents. I know I have been guilty of using the phone whilst driving and have the points on my license to prove it!
Latest adverts are saying it makes you 4 times more likely to have an accident.
I also remember a few years ago reading up on tests they were doing regarding reaction times. The thing that stuck in my head was that it showed having a car interior at 27C as opposed to 19C
decreased increased reaction times by 50%.
Quote from: Asal Mor on November 03, 2015, 02:01:20 PM
It's a tragic case but I'm not sure about the sentence. The judge was obviously moved by all that the family have been through, and it's unimaginable, but I don't think O' Rourke is any worse than lots of us who would have driven home in similar states of drunkenness(feeling invincible as O' Neill said). A mandatory two week prison sentence for anyone who drinks and drives would be a good idea imo, rather than treating it as a minor offence unless you're unfortunate enough to hit someone. If someone drinks ten pints and drives, the rest is just down to luck.You see people with multiple drink driving convictions get far lesser sentences and imo that's unfair. This man has to live with what he did as well and his suffering must be beyond comprehension too.
Those are the boys should be getting jail every time.
Quote from: LeoMc on November 03, 2015, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: GJL on October 30, 2015, 11:04:48 AM
I would guess that using the mobile to either text or take/make a call is something that causes a lot of accidents. I know I have been guilty of using the phone whilst driving and have the points on my license to prove it!
Latest adverts are saying it makes you 4 times more likely to have an accident.
I also remember a few years ago reading up on tests they were doing regarding reaction times. The thing that stuck in my head was that it showed having a car interior at 27C as opposed to 19C decreased reaction times by 50%.
So hotter made reaction times faster? Intuitively I'd have thought the opposite but that's quite interesting.
Quote from: Franko on November 03, 2015, 03:00:14 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 03, 2015, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: GJL on October 30, 2015, 11:04:48 AM
I would guess that using the mobile to either text or take/make a call is something that causes a lot of accidents. I know I have been guilty of using the phone whilst driving and have the points on my license to prove it!
Latest adverts are saying it makes you 4 times more likely to have an accident.
I also remember a few years ago reading up on tests they were doing regarding reaction times. The thing that stuck in my head was that it showed having a car interior at 27C as opposed to 19C decreased reactions times by 50%.
So hotter made reaction times faster? Intuitively I'd have thought the opposite but that's quite interesting.
Corrected...
Quote from: Franko on November 03, 2015, 02:37:30 PM
Quote from: illdecide on November 03, 2015, 02:28:16 PM
I would love to know how O'Rourke feels and did he make any statement after being sentenced. Did he show remorse? Has he written to the family asking for forgiveness? Is he sorry for what he done? the Treacy family will always be haunted with this to the day of their grave but how will O'Rourke be and his family...
I know if i was stupid enough to do something like that i don't think i could live with myself, i'd be looking the judge to throw away the key to the cell
According to deiseach's Indo article, before sentencing he took the stand to say;
"I would give my life, I never went out to hurt anybody that day," he said. "I just didn't think, I just jumped into the car."
Seems pretty remorseful but I'm sure it's scant consolation.
10 pints and got into a car to drive. He didn't get long enough in my opinion. I know everyone makes mistakes but when your mistake costs a life you deserve what you get. His life will go on when his time is served. That wee boy will still be dead and his family will never be the same again. Coming up to Christmas just leave the car at home.
Quote from: LeoMc on November 03, 2015, 03:04:39 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 03, 2015, 03:00:14 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 03, 2015, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: GJL on October 30, 2015, 11:04:48 AM
I would guess that using the mobile to either text or take/make a call is something that causes a lot of accidents. I know I have been guilty of using the phone whilst driving and have the points on my license to prove it!
Latest adverts are saying it makes you 4 times more likely to have an accident.
I also remember a few years ago reading up on tests they were doing regarding reaction times. The thing that stuck in my head was that it showed having a car interior at 27C as opposed to 19C decreased reactions times by 50%.
So hotter made reaction times faster? Intuitively I'd have thought the opposite but that's quite interesting.
Corrected...
I was wondering about that. I would have thought that 27C in a car would be causing people to nod.
Interesting though because most people wouldn't make the connection.
Quote from: muppet on November 03, 2015, 06:13:36 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 03, 2015, 03:04:39 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 03, 2015, 03:00:14 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 03, 2015, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: GJL on October 30, 2015, 11:04:48 AM
I would guess that using the mobile to either text or take/make a call is something that causes a lot of accidents. I know I have been guilty of using the phone whilst driving and have the points on my license to prove it!
Latest adverts are saying it makes you 4 times more likely to have an accident.
I also remember a few years ago reading up on tests they were doing regarding reaction times. The thing that stuck in my head was that it showed having a car interior at 27C as opposed to 19C decreased reactions times by 50%.
So hotter made reaction times faster? Intuitively I'd have thought the opposite but that's quite interesting.
Corrected...
I was wondering about that. I would have thought that 27C in a car would be causing people to nod.
Interesting though because most people wouldn't make the connection.
It was by how much the reactions slowed with the extra bit of warmth (sleepy time) that shocked me.
Tiredness kills it is just not as easy to measure in the blood or by looking at the mobile history.
Quote from: Asal Mor on November 03, 2015, 02:33:43 PM
Quote from: illdecide on November 03, 2015, 02:28:16 PM
I would love to know how O'Rourke feels and did he make any statement after being sentenced. Did he show remorse? Has he written to the family asking for forgiveness? Is he sorry for what he done? the Treacy family will always be haunted with this to the day of their grave but how will O'Rourke be and his family...
I know if i was stupid enough to do something like that i don't think i could live with myself, i'd be looking the judge to throw away the key to the cell
If you've driven while drunk at any point in your life, then you were stupid enough to do something like that and are no better than O' Rourke. I have and I'm sure lots of others on here have too.
He had 10 pints (didn't finish the last one, so officially they are calling it 9 and a half).
I honestly believe that I don't think anyone I know would drive a car with that much booze on board.
Huge difference between a driver over the limit from having 2 or 3 pints and someone after having 9 or 10 pints.
I remember 20 years ago when i hadn't long got the test and was young and foolish i drove the car up to Dundalk one Friday night with the girlfriend, done the usual bite to eat, Lotto, car full of diesel and drove back home. Was a frosty night so the heat was blasting in the car and i'd been working hard all week with little sleep and was very tired, i could feel the head going with tiredness but thought i'd be grand. The girlfriend was sleeping and i was fighting to stay awake.
The police had been following me for a few miles outside of Newry and pulled me over. The Cop woman asked me had i been drinking? "Of course not" was my reply and the next question was "are you tired"? She made me get out of the car and walk a few hundred meters until i had been refreshed (which i was), she than asked me was i okay to continue on home and i said "yes". Got into the car and continued the journey home and 5 mins later the head was away again and the scary thing is i couldn't remember driving through Banbridge Town and i actually woke up about to drive into a parked car on the way into Lurgan, i swerved the car around just missing it but if there had of been a car coming in the other direction i was dead. that soon woke me up and got home safe from there but the fact i drove about 20 miles and can't remember it at all or how the hell i got there is unreal, that was probably just poor luck and worse that drink driving...to this day iv'e never drove whilst tired again, shocked the life out of me on what could have happened...
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/former-dublin-gaa-star-senan-connell-has-drink-driving-case-against-him-struck-out-34197258.html
Great little country
Turns ut Dublin players really do get off with everything! :O
Quote from: WT4E on November 13, 2015, 02:04:55 PM
Turns ut Dublin players really do get off with everything! :O
Plenty of people getting off with that technicality, no?
Anyone here have any driving offences? I'm just wondering as there seems to be a disparity between women and men getting away with things.
Purely anecdotal but I know several females who have got away with serious enough offences that men would surely get points for. An example a girl I know, was caught speeding (80 mph) while restricted and got off with a warning, likewise another girl doing a similar speed in a 60 zone got of scot free. I know of a story where a girl even got away with drink driving but I'm sceptical on that one. I know there's no way of ever proving or disproving this but it just seems to be a common theme
Quote from: general_lee on November 27, 2015, 09:00:41 AM
Anyone here have any driving offences? I'm just wondering as there seems to be a disparity between women and men getting away with things.
Purely anecdotal but I know several females who have got away with serious enough offences that men would surely get points for. An example a girl I know, was caught speeding (80 mph) while restricted and got off with a warning, likewise another girl doing a similar speed in a 60 zone got of scot free. I know of a story where a girl even got away with drink driving but I'm sceptical on that one. I know there's no way of ever proving or disproving this but it just seems to be a common theme
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/15/1537494f8037b79caa43b67ae24cd655b6297c13ef2fd72d45cd557605dc99f0.jpg)
Drink Driving poster from 1972 ;D
(http://usvsth3m.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/B4pNqOQIEAAbxR3.jpg)
This is very hard to watch. My heart goes out to that family.Hopefully it will stop someone from doing similar.
https://youtu.be/dtyOq5ATw18
https://www.radiokerry.ie/news/former-kerry-footballer-banned-from-driving-for-three-years-after-drink-driving-conviction-affirmed-330269
'issue with the breathalyser apparatus at the station'
'requested to make a call to a retired Garda Sergeant'
Quote from: Dabh on May 10, 2023, 02:18:33 PM
https://www.radiokerry.ie/news/former-kerry-footballer-banned-from-driving-for-three-years-after-drink-driving-conviction-affirmed-330269
'issue with the breathalyser apparatus at the station'
'requested to make a call to a retired Garda Sergeant'
Aye just the 6 times over the limit ???
6 times over.
If accurate, thankfully nobody was hurt or worse.
Quote from: joemamas on May 10, 2023, 02:41:26 PM
6 times over.
If accurate, thankfully nobody was hurt or worse.
Indeed. Just clicked on the link in the previous post - from 2016 but definitely a hard watch
Reading that, don't think there are any questions to the accuracy of the result, given a urine sample is more accurate than a breath sample.
The appeal seems to be trying to get this thrown out on a technicality. It appears legal advice at the time wouldn't have changed the fact that the driver was over the limit, and was obliged to submit to a sample, so why not take your medicine and thank your lucky stars it's a drink driving conviction and not a cause serious harm while under the influence, or worse.
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on May 11, 2023, 02:57:36 AM
Quote from: joemamas on May 10, 2023, 02:41:26 PM
6 times over.
If accurate, thankfully nobody was hurt or worse.
Indeed. Just clicked on the link in the previous post - from 2016 but definitely a hard watch
Reading that, don't think there are any questions to the accuracy of the result, given a urine sample is more accurate than a breath sample.
The appeal seems to be trying to get this thrown out on a technicality. It appears legal advice at the time wouldn't have changed the fact that the driver was over the limit, and was obliged to submit to a sample, so why not take your medicine and thank your lucky stars it's a drink driving conviction and not a cause serious harm while under the influence, or worse.
In the North the law is you are only entitled to legal advice if the solicitor is readily available and it will therefore not delay the taking of the specimen. In practice however it's very difficult to get a charge dismissed on this technicality.
Almost interestingly though this is one of the very few areas of law where defendants do not have a right to silence. So it is imperative that proper procedures are correctly following. In 2021 a case in England even went so far as to allow illegally obtained specimens to form the basis of convictions.
How many pints would have you 6 times over the limit. I thought the limit was 1 pint. So 6 pints??
Quote from: snoopdog on May 11, 2023, 08:54:29 AM
How many pints would have you 6 times over the limit. I thought the limit was 1 pint. So 6 pints??
Does it work like that? Think it depends from person to person. If he's only had 6 pints then the headline is shockingly dramatic.
Dont think it works like that but undoubtedly someone who knows will be along shortly 😃
Sickens me the lengths people will go to try and worm their way out of these things.
"The current drink-driving limit is a BAC of 50mg. This means 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. For professional, learner and novice drivers the limit is a BAC of 20mg. Most people will have a BAC of 20 to 50mg after 1 standard drink."
From the HSE website. No one should be driving after 6 alcoholic drinks.
Quote from: Pub Bore on May 11, 2023, 09:20:19 AM
"The current drink-driving limit is a BAC of 50mg. This means 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. For professional, learner and novice drivers the limit is a BAC of 20mg. Most people will have a BAC of 20 to 50mg after 1 standard drink."
From the HSE website. No one should be driving after 6 alcoholic drinks.
according to Drinkaware.ie the limits for a blood test and a urine test are slightly different
it
67 milligrammes of alcohol per 100ml of urine This was urine sample of 414mg of alcohol per 100ml .. so a rough calculation is just over 3 pints would get you there .. not quite 'an enormous amount of alcohol' as the article states.. but i'm sure time & body size etc all affect this.
No one should be driving after half a pint if they want to stay within the law
I wonder will his weekly article on All Things Kerry in The Irish Times continue.
Dreadful carry on. Perhaps he should have seen the inside of Cork or Limerick prison.
How would the receipt of legal advice have changed things for O'Se as outlined in his defense??
Unless there was misconduct on the part of the Gardai or the medics, which he doesn't seem to be alleging, then what's the problem.
He should take his medicine and just thank his lucky stars he didn't injure or kill himself or, worse, someone else.
I wouldn't drink that often but if I had a few drinks I'd be paranoid about driving the next day up to around 2/3 in the afternoon nevermind getting in the car after a couple of pints. I saw a man a month or 2 ago heading outside for a smoke. In bad shape and could hardly stand. A minute or 2 later I see him driving past the window of the pub and away up the road home!
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Quote from: whitey on May 11, 2023, 01:23:38 PM
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Would you support mandatory speed limiters of 120kph/75mph on all vehicles too?
I know I would.
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 11, 2023, 01:23:38 PM
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Would you support mandatory speed limiters of 120kph/75mph on all vehicles too?
I know I would.
Hadn't thought about it but can't really see a problem with it
A friend of mine works for an IT company that has developed software that tracks your driving habits....rapid accelerating, violent braking and swerving, switching lanes without indicating, speed etc
You install the software on your vehicle and then you get a sizable discount in your insurance based on your rating
They mainly have commercial fleets as clients so far but are gaining traction with regular drivers
It's probably in all of our futures
https://www.cmtelematics.com/
It's been on the go for a good while that. Yeah I would suspect that is coming for all of us.
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 11, 2023, 01:23:38 PM
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Would you support mandatory speed limiters of 120kph/75mph on all vehicles too?
I know I would.
Not a chance. Modern cars can sit at 100mph plus very easily.
Would be in favour of the alcoclocks thing though
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 11, 2023, 01:23:38 PM
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Would you support mandatory speed limiters of 120kph/75mph on all vehicles too?
I know I would.
Not a chance. Modern cars can sit at 100mph plus very easily.
Would be in favour of the alcoclocks thing though
There are very few roads anywhere where it is safe to have people driving at 100 mph, even in those cars that are built for it.
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 11, 2023, 01:23:38 PM
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Would you support mandatory speed limiters of 120kph/75mph on all vehicles too?
I know I would.
Not a chance. Modern cars can sit at 100mph plus very easily.
Would be in favour of the alcoclocks thing though
Good to see some posters haven't changed since 2015. In summary, man under any influence of alcohol is a menace to society, but man driving at speed kills no one.
It's amazing how some public health marketing campaigns work, and others do not.
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 11, 2023, 01:23:38 PM
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Would you support mandatory speed limiters of 120kph/75mph on all vehicles too?
I know I would.
Not a chance. Modern cars can sit at 100mph plus very easily.
Would be in favour of the alcoclocks thing though
Good to see some posters haven't changed since 2015. In summary, man under any influence of alcohol is a menace to society, but man driving at speed kills no one.
It's amazing how some public health marketing campaigns work, and others do not.
to be honest it just depends on the person and circumstances. I know people that I'd trust to drive safer after 12 pints than some people do sober. Similarly there are people I could sit beside doing 120+ and feel safer than I would doing 40 mph. 70mph is a ridiculously low speed limit. Try sitting in the fast lane of a motorway at 70 and see how you get on
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 02:30:30 PM
Good to see some posters haven't changed since 2015. In summary, man under any influence of alcohol is a menace to society, but man driving at speed kills no one.
It's amazing how some public health marketing campaigns work, and others do not.
You can only say that incapacitation due to excessive alcohol is inevitably a problem where an appropriate speed is defined in the actual circumstances.
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 11, 2023, 01:23:38 PM
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Would you support mandatory speed limiters of 120kph/75mph on all vehicles too?
I know I would.
Not a chance. Modern cars can sit at 100mph plus very easily.
Would be in favour of the alcoclocks thing though
Good to see some posters haven't changed since 2015. In summary, man under any influence of alcohol is a menace to society, but man driving at speed kills no one.
It's amazing how some public health marketing campaigns work, and others do not.
to be honest it just depends on the person and circumstances. I know people that I'd trust to drive safer after 12 pints than some people do sober. Similarly there are people I could sit beside doing 120+ and feel safer than I would doing 40 mph. 70mph is a ridiculously low speed limit. Try sitting in the fast lane of a motorway at 70 and see how you get on
What's the rush?
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 11, 2023, 01:23:38 PM
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Would you support mandatory speed limiters of 120kph/75mph on all vehicles too?
I know I would.
Not a chance. Modern cars can sit at 100mph plus very easily.
Would be in favour of the alcoclocks thing though
Good to see some posters haven't changed since 2015. In summary, man under any influence of alcohol is a menace to society, but man driving at speed kills no one.
It's amazing how some public health marketing campaigns work, and others do not.
to be honest it just depends on the person and circumstances. I know people that I'd trust to drive safer after 12 pints than some people do sober. Similarly there are people I could sit beside doing 120+ and feel safer than I would doing 40 mph. 70mph is a ridiculously low speed limit. Try sitting in the fast lane of a motorway at 70 and see how you get on
Just because you're going to get flashed and harrassed at 70 mph doesn't mean its a ridiculous speed limit. It does mean there are a lot of arrogant, aggressive arseholes on the road though.
And I don't what kind of carry on you're all at up Armagh way, but I've never been close to 120 mph in any car anywhere. And I come from rally wannabe central!
As an annual visitor a huge problem I see is that the roads are no match for the cars
When I was growing up in the 70s and 80, all you had in rural Ireland were Ford Escorts and Toyota Corollas
Now, it's high powered BMWs and Mercedes and people driving like they're in the AutoBahn
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 11, 2023, 01:23:38 PM
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Would you support mandatory speed limiters of 120kph/75mph on all vehicles too?
I know I would.
Not a chance. Modern cars can sit at 100mph plus very easily.
Would be in favour of the alcoclocks thing though
Good to see some posters haven't changed since 2015. In summary, man under any influence of alcohol is a menace to society, but man driving at speed kills no one.
It's amazing how some public health marketing campaigns work, and others do not.
to be honest it just depends on the person and circumstances. I know people that I'd trust to drive safer after 12 pints than some people do sober. Similarly there are people I could sit beside doing 120+ and feel safer than I would doing 40 mph. 70mph is a ridiculously low speed limit. Try sitting in the fast lane of a motorway at 70 and see how you get on
christ the night, what a statement ???
but altogether typical
in fact scratch that, the whole post is outrageous lol
ITV had an interesting documentary years ago about the effects of alcohol on individuals. They got 20 people. Had them drink different amounts in different time frames then drive on a simulator.
The results were fascinating some people were more than double the limit on a glass of wine others were under after a number of pints. It depending on myriad of factors such as age height weight metabolism, gender etc.
The one thing that was clear was that alcohol had some impact on everyone's driving and wasn't to be encouraged
Quote from: Dabh on May 11, 2023, 09:30:23 AM
Quote from: Pub Bore on May 11, 2023, 09:20:19 AM
"The current drink-driving limit is a BAC of 50mg. This means 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. For professional, learner and novice drivers the limit is a BAC of 20mg. Most people will have a BAC of 20 to 50mg after 1 standard drink."
From the HSE website. No one should be driving after 6 alcoholic drinks.
according to Drinkaware.ie the limits for a blood test and a urine test are slightly different
it 67 milligrammes of alcohol per 100ml of urine
This was urine sample of 414mg of alcohol per 100ml .. so a rough calculation is just over 3 pints would get you there .. not quite 'an enormous amount of alcohol' as the article states.. but i'm sure time & body size etc all affect this.
No one should be driving after half a pint if they want to stay within the law
It's not linear like that. The body processes alcohol at different rates as the volume of alcohol increases.
https://www.verywellmind.com/bac-and-drink-conversions-for-men-by-weight-22481#:~:text=After%2015%20drinks%2C%20the%20BAC,of%20cardiac%20or%20respiratory%20arrest.
Obviously a lot of variables in how each body processes alcohol, but according to this article, a reading of 0.45 is considered fatal for adults.
They talk about 15 drinks for a BAC of 0.3. It is unclear what they are referring to as a drink.
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/heavy-vehicle-industry/preventing-alcohol-and-drug-related-harm-on-our-roads/employers-and-employees/blood-alcohol-concentration-levels
This article from Victoria in Aus, refers to 9-18 drinks to result in BAC of 0.15-0.30, noting that in Australia a standard drink is defined as 10g of alcohol
(https://alcoholthinkagain.com.au/media/u2mnsvo3/ata_guidelinetiles_670x700.png?anchor=center&mode=crop&width=670&height=450&rnd=132531858307500000)
A pint of Guinness at 4.2% ABV would be equivalent to 1.83 standard drinks, so 15-18 standards would be somewhere around 8-10 pints.
Noting from both articles, you would be very drunk with a BAC of 0.3
Quote from: Mikhail Prokhorov on May 11, 2023, 10:54:47 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 11, 2023, 01:23:38 PM
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Would you support mandatory speed limiters of 120kph/75mph on all vehicles too?
I know I would.
Not a chance. Modern cars can sit at 100mph plus very easily.
Would be in favour of the alcoclocks thing though
Good to see some posters haven't changed since 2015. In summary, man under any influence of alcohol is a menace to society, but man driving at speed kills no one.
It's amazing how some public health marketing campaigns work, and others do not.
to be honest it just depends on the person and circumstances. I know people that I'd trust to drive safer after 12 pints than some people do sober. Similarly there are people I could sit beside doing 120+ and feel safer than I would doing 40 mph. 70mph is a ridiculously low speed limit. Try sitting in the fast lane of a motorway at 70 and see how you get on
christ the night, what a statement ???
but altogether typical
in fact scratch that, the whole post is outrageous lol
I remember reading somewhere that a speed limit increase was discussed before but because so many cars do 80mph on motorways anyway they just kept it at 70.
Quote from: general_lee on May 12, 2023, 07:39:08 AM
Quote from: Mikhail Prokhorov on May 11, 2023, 10:54:47 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 11, 2023, 01:23:38 PM
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Would you support mandatory speed limiters of 120kph/75mph on all vehicles too?
I know I would.
Not a chance. Modern cars can sit at 100mph plus very easily.
Would be in favour of the alcoclocks thing though
Good to see some posters haven't changed since 2015. In summary, man under any influence of alcohol is a menace to society, but man driving at speed kills no one.
It's amazing how some public health marketing campaigns work, and others do not.
to be honest it just depends on the person and circumstances. I know people that I'd trust to drive safer after 12 pints than some people do sober. Similarly there are people I could sit beside doing 120+ and feel safer than I would doing 40 mph. 70mph is a ridiculously low speed limit. Try sitting in the fast lane of a motorway at 70 and see how you get on
christ the night, what a statement ???
but altogether typical
in fact scratch that, the whole post is outrageous lol
I remember reading somewhere that a speed limit increase was discussed before but because so many cars do 80mph on motorways anyway they just kept it at 70.
What would be a big help would be education as to how to drive at higher speeds. Bit nuts that people are told that after a year and with no training or testing you can go from 45 to 70. Do they still do the P plates thing in England where after you did your test you could receive specialist training on motorways but you had to display a P plate. The training obviously cost you but you soon recouped it through lower insurance premiums
Quote from: David McKeown on May 12, 2023, 11:42:19 AM
Quote from: general_lee on May 12, 2023, 07:39:08 AM
Quote from: Mikhail Prokhorov on May 11, 2023, 10:54:47 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 11, 2023, 01:23:38 PM
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Would you support mandatory speed limiters of 120kph/75mph on all vehicles too?
I know I would.
Not a chance. Modern cars can sit at 100mph plus very easily.
Would be in favour of the alcoclocks thing though
Good to see some posters haven't changed since 2015. In summary, man under any influence of alcohol is a menace to society, but man driving at speed kills no one.
It's amazing how some public health marketing campaigns work, and others do not.
to be honest it just depends on the person and circumstances. I know people that I'd trust to drive safer after 12 pints than some people do sober. Similarly there are people I could sit beside doing 120+ and feel safer than I would doing 40 mph. 70mph is a ridiculously low speed limit. Try sitting in the fast lane of a motorway at 70 and see how you get on
christ the night, what a statement ???
but altogether typical
in fact scratch that, the whole post is outrageous lol
I remember reading somewhere that a speed limit increase was discussed before but because so many cars do 80mph on motorways anyway they just kept it at 70.
What would be a big help would be education as to how to drive at higher speeds. Bit nuts that people are told that after a year and with no training or testing you can go from 45 to 70. Do they still do the P plates thing in England where after you did your test you could receive specialist training on motorways but you had to display a P plate. The training obviously cost you but you soon recouped it through lower insurance premiums
It's mad to think learners aren't allowed on the motorway until they've passed their test... at which point they're then expected to be able to deal with that level of driving. 45mph is far too slow for motorway driving, this hasn't changed in decades yet the safety capabilities of cars has. It should be mandatory for learners to go on motorways as part of their test.
Learners can drive on dual carriageways which are 70mph?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 12, 2023, 02:15:52 PM
Learners can drive on dual carriageways which are 70mph?
Yeah but restricted to 45mph. Absolute hazard.
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 12, 2023, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 12, 2023, 02:15:52 PM
Learners can drive on dual carriageways which are 70mph?
Yeah but restricted to 45mph. Absolute hazard.
Tractors a Hazard too then?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 12, 2023, 02:50:20 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 12, 2023, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 12, 2023, 02:15:52 PM
Learners can drive on dual carriageways which are 70mph?
Yeah but restricted to 45mph. Absolute hazard.
Tractors a Hazard too then?
on a dual carriageway? Definitely. Bit easier to spot a tractor than an L plate though lol
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 12, 2023, 02:50:20 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 12, 2023, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 12, 2023, 02:15:52 PM
Learners can drive on dual carriageways which are 70mph?
Yeah but restricted to 45mph. Absolute hazard.
Tractors a Hazard too then?
Are tractors allowed on roads like that?
They would absolutely be a hazard.
Quote from: J70 on May 12, 2023, 03:26:09 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 12, 2023, 02:50:20 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 12, 2023, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 12, 2023, 02:15:52 PM
Learners can drive on dual carriageways which are 70mph?
Yeah but restricted to 45mph. Absolute hazard.
Tractors a Hazard too then?
Are tractors allowed on roads like that?
They would absolutely be a hazard.
Allowed on dual carriageway but not motorway as far as I know
Quote from: J70 on May 12, 2023, 03:26:09 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 12, 2023, 02:50:20 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 12, 2023, 02:17:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 12, 2023, 02:15:52 PM
Learners can drive on dual carriageways which are 70mph?
Yeah but restricted to 45mph. Absolute hazard.
Tractors a Hazard too then?
Are tractors allowed on roads like that?
They would absolutely be a hazard.
In the ROI, they have built and designated roads as motorways, which restricts traffic. In the North, they do not designate roads as motorways even when built to that standard, like the Newry bypass, and so you can have tractors, scooters etc quite legally. The North also allow the same speed limit on many parts of a shite dualler, like the A1, as an actual motorway.The 26 counties has a more reasonable approach to this.
However, large tractors do get on motorways as they now exceed the restricted speed. This needs to looked at.
Even if they can exceed the minimum speeds, can those large modern tractors slow down safely, especially with machinery attached, when in traffic?
Could see all kinds of issues with skidding, overturning and jack-knifing.
Quote from: David McKeown on May 12, 2023, 11:42:19 AM
Quote from: general_lee on May 12, 2023, 07:39:08 AM
Quote from: Mikhail Prokhorov on May 11, 2023, 10:54:47 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 11, 2023, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on May 11, 2023, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 11, 2023, 01:23:38 PM
It's time to put alcolocks on the ignitions
The technology is already there
Anyone who overrides it for a drunk driver-immediate jail time
Would you support mandatory speed limiters of 120kph/75mph on all vehicles too?
I know I would.
Not a chance. Modern cars can sit at 100mph plus very easily.
Would be in favour of the alcoclocks thing though
Good to see some posters haven't changed since 2015. In summary, man under any influence of alcohol is a menace to society, but man driving at speed kills no one.
It's amazing how some public health marketing campaigns work, and others do not.
to be honest it just depends on the person and circumstances. I know people that I'd trust to drive safer after 12 pints than some people do sober. Similarly there are people I could sit beside doing 120+ and feel safer than I would doing 40 mph. 70mph is a ridiculously low speed limit. Try sitting in the fast lane of a motorway at 70 and see how you get on
christ the night, what a statement ???
but altogether typical
in fact scratch that, the whole post is outrageous lol
I remember reading somewhere that a speed limit increase was discussed before but because so many cars do 80mph on motorways anyway they just kept it at 70.
What would be a big help would be education as to how to drive at higher speeds. Bit nuts that people are told that after a year and with no training or testing you can go from 45 to 70. Do they still do the P plates thing in England where after you did your test you could receive specialist training on motorways but you had to display a P plate. The training obviously cost you but you soon recouped it through lower insurance premiums
Just because you're suddenly allowed to hit 70, doesn't mean you should. 70 isn't a target to aim for . I would rarely if ever , go above 65 on a motorway .